Andrew Mitchell: I join the Secretary of State in sending our condolences to the friends and family of the Welsh Guards officer who died in Selly Oak this morning.
	The Secretary of State will know that the National Audit Office has criticised his Department for handing over £20 million of taxpayers' money to the Afghan Counter-Narcotics Trust Fund, which the UNDP was too inexperienced to manage effectively. Was DFID aware of the serious concerns about the competence of the UNDP when it handed over that money?

Michael Moore: I, too, send the condolences of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the family of the solider who died this morning, and remember those who have given their lives in Afghanistan. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of all our armed forces in Afghanistan, and also to the members of his Department, who work in incredibly difficult circumstances on our collective behalf.
	Two weeks ago the Prime Minister set out a welcome new joint security strategy that linked Afghanistan and Pakistan. Separately, the Afghanistan stabilisation fund has been pooled with the conflict prevention fund for south Asia, which has a broader remit, including crisis areas such as Sri Lanka. Can the Secretary of State share with the House how the new Afghanistan-Pakistan joint focus will be helped by these new broader arrangements?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue—that of humanitarian space and ensuring that humanitarians organisations such as the Red Cross, and many other non-governmental organisations, have the opportunity to continue to provide humanitarian support to people in desperate situations as a result of conflicts and other disasters. One thing that the Department continues to do is to work extremely closely with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance, the key UN body that leads on these issues. We are working with OCHA and other partners on how we can get a better international humanitarian system precisely to help on the delivery of aid, and to try to achieve the humanitarian space that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says we must continue to champion.

Gordon Brown: I hope that people will also speak up for decent, hard-working Members of Parliament who are going about their duty in their ordinary way and who are not trying make any money out of being a Member of Parliament, but simply trying to serve the public. It is very important that we get some context in this debate. Where there are abuses, they must be sorted out. Where there are disagreements about future policy, I agree that recommendations should be made to the committee by MPs and by parties but, as I have said before, I do not believe that we will command the confidence of the public unless people outside this House believe that what we are doing is also right. This cannot be an issue for just Members to make long-term decisions upon.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's proposal about houses, I know that capital gains tax has to be paid on these second homes. That is the first priority, and the other matters can be dealt with in representations to the committee.

Helen Southworth: Every year more than 100,000 children go missing in this country. Thankfully, most of them are found safe, but some of them are not. Over the next few days, events will be held all around the country to mark international missing children's day. Will the Prime Minister meet me and members from the leading children's charities to find out not only what is being done to protect those children, but what we need to do further?

Gordon Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend back for his first question after his recent illness. Things got really bad while he was away, and we are very pleased that he has come back. He is right about the importance of the minimum wage. We supported it in 1997 and we continue to support it. It has been raised this week and we have made it clear for the first time that tips should not be charged against it. We are determined to keep it, and I hope that all hon. Members will consider voting against the Bill on Friday that has the intention to undermine the minimum wage and kill it off in this country.

Gordon Brown: The House of Commons will debate the issue later this week. I am calling for three urgent actions, and I am making that clear in conversations with the President of Sri Lanka. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government must exercise the utmost restraint and avoid civilian casualties. All civilians must be allowed, as I have already requested, to leave the conflict zones, and the UN must have full access to civilians caught up in the conflict. We will play our part through our aid programme. The Foreign Secretary has been in New York to urge the UN to take further action and our special envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), has been in the region meeting partners and building up pressure for a full ceasefire. What is happening in Sri Lanka is having a devastating humanitarian impact on many people, and we will make continuing efforts to avoid civilian casualties, taking whatever action we can to persuade the Sri Lankan Government of the need for restraint and an end to the violence.

Tony Wright: At various times in our history we have had the Long Parliament, the Rump Parliament, the Good Parliament and the Addled Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are not careful we will finish up as the Moat Parliament or the Manure Parliament? Should we not say now that we will accept whatever the Kelly committee says? Will my right hon. Friend to say that on behalf of the Government and invite the other party leaders to say it on behalf of their parties, too?

Brooks Newmark: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for minimum standards for football goalposts.
	Eighteen years ago, an 11-year-old boy from my constituency, Jonathan Smith, was killed during an away game of the Whitham under-12s. Jonathan was swinging from the crossbar when the goalpost fell on him, ruptured his heart and left his family devastated. Since his death, Jonathan's mother, Brenda Smith, who is here today watching the presentation of this Bill, has fought a tireless campaign to improve the safety of goalposts.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who secured a debate on this important subject in Westminster Hall in January 2000. Nine years on, however, there is still no legislation to improve goalpost safety standards.
	The beautiful game has a devoted following in all parts of the House. Many of us, including, I am sure, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, are wary of imposing new rules, regulations or requirements on the game, its clubs, supporters or amateur players, but my Bill is not an example of health and safety gone mad. I am not talking about professional football, or families having a kickabout in their back yard, and I am not out to ruin anyone's fun. As a passionate Newcastle United fan and father of five, I do not need to be told how important football is to young people. I know only too well that millions of people regularly enjoy playing football, and we need to encourage them to do so, but we also need appropriate legislation to help to keep them safe.
	It is true that some progress has already been made. We now have a good British Standards Institution standard, an up-and-running scheme to replace unsafe goalposts, some growing publicity, and letters of support for Brenda Smith from Her Majesty the Queen, sports personalities and the Football Association, among others.
	In 2005, a new BSI standard was introduced. The Football Foundation says that
	"the standard is good, the standard is solid".
	Nevertheless, manufacturers and buyers are only recommended to comply with it. In addition, the FA distributed more than 1 million leaflets to help clubs, schools and councils to understand better the risks posed by unsafe goalposts and how safety measures should be applied practice.
	The Football Foundation operates an excellent scheme, which allows any FA-affiliated club, local authority, school, community group or club in the national league system step 7 and below to apply for a 50 per cent. grant to replace any of their goalposts that do not adhere to the recognised BSI standard. However, my Bill seeks to go a step further, by making the replacement of any goalposts that do not meet the BSI standard mandatory by 2012. That will include goalposts used on property owned by councils, schools and clubs.
	The Bill will target in particular goalposts made before 1996—the year in which British standards were first produced for goalposts. Despite the introduction of those standards, the FA says that some schools still use, for example, wooden goalposts, which are not illegal, but which do pose a threat to the children using them. Other unsafe goalposts include those that are corroded, rusted or free-standing, or those with metal cuphooks on the posts of crossbars.
	In 2005, the FA identified approximately 15,000 goalposts that did not meet the BSI standard. The Football Foundation has, to date, offered 3,192 grants with a value of nearly £2 million. As the grants can be offered for multiple goalposts, they have enabled about one third of the unsafe goalposts identified to be replaced. That is an admirable achievement, but more can be done.
	I admit that I was surprised when I first became aware of the risk posed by unsafe goalposts. Since Jonathan's death in 1991, at least 10 other children in the UK and many others worldwide have been killed by falling goalposts. Even more have been injured, suffering broken limbs, bruising and fractured skulls, often leaving permanent damage and disfiguring scars. Adults, too, have also been injured in the same way: I recently heard from the parents of another constituent who, 10 years ago, when she was in her mid-20s, had an unsecured goalpost land on her, causing severe injuries for which she is receiving treatment to this day. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar stories.
	The Football Association says that one of the biggest problems is when children swing on goalposts, and I suppose that one answer is to admit that it is difficult to stop children wanting to play on goalposts. Nevertheless, we can minimise the risk as far as possible by ensuring that goalposts are fit for purpose, properly installed and well maintained.
	The goalpost that killed my constituent's son, Jonathan, was simply made of scaffold poles welded together, weighing 200 lb, that were not fixed to the ground. Jonathan was playing in a game for under-12s, who weigh perhaps 60 or 70 lb; they would not have been at risk if purpose-built, lightweight plastic or aluminium goalposts had been in use. Installation and maintenance is as important as manufacture; indeed, the current Football Foundation scheme insists on professional installation and offers training in proper maintenance techniques. Local authorities already have to organise an independent annual check on the conditions of their own pitches. I believe it would be a simple matter to ensure that the safety of the goalposts was also checked at this time.
	The Government have argued that enough has already been done and that a voluntary code will suffice. In a letter sent to my constituent, Brenda Smith, in September last year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that the Government still
	"do not have any current plans to introduce legislation covering this area".
	I agree that support, guidelines and recommendations are a major step forward in creating good practice, but we can do more to ensure that no other family has to mourn losing a child who should have been celebrating winning a football game.
	Other countries have taken more robust action on this issue. The New South Wales Government in Australia passed legislation prohibiting the manufacture of goalposts that did not meet strict criteria. This guarantees that goalposts cannot fall or tip over, and that they are of a limited weight and force.
	I never imagined that I would suggest to the House that France is a country that has anything to teach us about the beautiful game, but the French have legislated for a safety standard that makes the manufacture, distribution or use of non-standard goalposts illegal. I am sure that when it comes to goalpost safety, even my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would not object to our taking the French lead.
	Given the simple and accessible scheme already in operation, 2012 is a realistic target. The year of the London Olympics is also an important symbolic target, proving that we have a commitment to grass-roots sports and that we care as much for safety as for success. That would be a great British Olympic legacy.
	The Football Association says it has
	"done as much as possible internally and externally",
	while the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), a supporter of this Bill and a previous sports Minister, said that pushing for legislation on goalpost safety was "obviously a longer-term solution". Well, it is now 18 years since Brenda Smith lost her son—and that is not just the long term, but a whole lifetime. I hope that I will receive the support of all hon. Members for this Bill to place our children at the heart of a culture of safety and awareness, and to make minimum safety standards for goalposts mandatory by 2012. I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Brooks Newmark, Mr. Don Foster, Rob Marris, Mr. John Grogan, Mr. David Anderson, Kate Hoey, Mr. Simon Burns, Alistair Burt, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. Nigel Evans and Stuart Hosie present the Bill.
	Mr. Brooks Newmark accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 961).

Rob Marris: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. May I assist you? My recollection is that the Member concerned was not in your line of sight or that of whoever was in the Chair at the time?

Mark Hoban: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Consultation should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, but now we have the Bill, we need to consider what to do with it. The thrust of my amendment is that we need to get the proposals right, and we need time to do so. If senior accounting officers are to sign off on whether they have appropriate systems of tax accounting for financial periods starting effectively from when the Bill is passed, they will need guidance. They will need to comply for the whole year, and they will have only a matter of weeks before they must know what is meant by the proposal. I would be pleased if the Financial Secretary followed my amendment and decided to defer implementation by a year. That would achieve the objective of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in getting consultation, it would achieve what I would like, and it would give industry and advisers time to make it work properly.
	My biggest concerns are about the Bill's unintended consequences, its impact on our economy's competitiveness, and the costs that will be incurred. The regulatory impact assessment flagged big concerns about the impact of the Bill, and it reminded me of the impact that the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in the States had on American businesses, and of its benefit to London's competitiveness. I have always joked that a statue should be erected in the City of London, first to reflect the contribution of Messrs. Sarbanes and Oxley to the success of the City, and secondly, as a reminder that hastily introduced, ill-thought-through legislation can be damaging.

Mark Hoban: Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about those powers. Perhaps when the Financial Secretary responds, he could say whether he expects draft regulations to have been published by the time we debate schedule 46. It would be helpful if that did happen, because given the nature of the consultation that has taken place to date, we would not feel comfortable passing legislation without having seen a draft of the statutory instruments that will implement the detail of the measure. The issue is not just one of consultation. It is about what the measure means in practice. How far does it go? There are already legislative requirements on companies relating to their accounting systems. There is also HMRC guidance on accounting systems already in place.
	On drawing up a set of statutory accounts, a number of my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), will know from their business background that businesses are required to have in place a set of accounting systems that enable them to draw up financial statements. Companies' financial statements will be audited. Auditors will rely on the systems and controls in place to ensure that the accounts are drawn up on a proper basis. The Companies Acts also confer duties on directors to keep adequate accounting records, and there are penalties if they misfile. There are already obligations on companies to ensure that the tax charge and tax balances figures that appear in their accounts are based on proper accounting systems, so it is not clear how much further the Government are seeking to go in imposing additional duties on senior accounting officers. Again, that is a matter on which we need clarification.
	One of the things that has surprised industry about the measure is that industry felt that it was working very closely with HMRC on risk assessment—on making sure that HMRC understands the risks in business relating to accounting for tax. Industry feels that that process has been much more open than it perhaps was historically. Guidance on tax compliance risk management is now published as an HMRC manual. It makes it clear that systems have become a key issue in moving corporates away from high risk and towards low risk. There has been a pilot scheme involving detailed systems reviews of 10 large corporates, and numerous other systems discussions are going on with large corporates, both within HMRC's large business service and, outside that unit in the local compliance large and complex teams.
	A lot of work is already going on in HMRC with large companies so that they understand the risks for businesses in producing accurate assessments of their tax position. Under the Finance Act 2008, HMRC has the absolute right to see statutory records. Also under that Act, there is an obligation on corporate businesses to provide reasonable assistance to HMRC's information technology auditors. There are already significant obligations on companies to work with HMRC, so it is not clear, from a tax angle—let alone from the angle of the normal responsibilities placed on a company through the Companies Acts—what more HMRC is looking for through the powers in the Bill.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about enforceability and about which person should be under an obligation, but of course a senior accounting officer will already have to sign off the tax returns when they are filed, a finance director will have to sign off the accounts, which include a calculation of the tax liability, and directors are responsible for maintaining proper accounting records. There may not be a specific obligation relating to tax accounting, but there are already broad responsibilities placed on directors to maintain proper accounting records. HMRC needs to justify why it is going beyond the existing tax and legal obligations on companies to provide proper tax accounting systems. That justification is missing. It is a question of HMRC trying to establish what the benefits and costs of enforceability that we are discussing. That is what is missing.
	I was about to comment on personal accountability. The measure imposes a fine of up to £5,000 on senior accounting officers for non-compliance. I suspect that any senior accounting officer would seek indemnity from their company, and would also look to their auditors. It is a slightly odd situation; the accounting officer will provide the certificate to the auditors, but he will also look to the auditors for compliance.
	There is an important point to make on the issue of materiality. I know from my experience as an auditor that one works to a "true and fair view". There is a concept of audit materiality in that, and it depends on the company to say where that threshold of materiality applies. It is not clear where it applies in the case that we are considering. Clearly, the fact that the Government introduced the proposal suggests that the level of materiality in company accounts is not sufficient; otherwise, they would not have needed to include the clause. They would have been content for the matter to rest where it is. I am not sure whether the Government are clear about where they believe that materiality should be. How much inaccuracy would HMRC be prepared to tolerate in the preparation of tax accounts?

Robert Syms: There is a real problem, because although only one fine can be levied per year, one presumes that if there was a problem with tax records going back several years, there would be multiple fines. Some poor fellow could retire, and be sitting in Sandbanks in Poole, and get a knock on the door one day. Let us say that, under his watch, there was a problem with record-keeping in a particular company for four or five years; that person could be asked for £20,000 or £25,000. We need more information, because such a situation would very much go against the grain of limited liability, and the liability of boards.

Mark Hoban: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West are trying valiantly to justify the measure, but I am not persuaded. There are already checks and balances in place to ensure that. If there was feedback from HMRC's risk assessment that directors were not taking their responsibilities seriously and that there were big gaps in risk, that would be an issue. I also question whether HMRC is concerned that there are material issues with tax compliance. I would expect that to be picked up by auditors and appropriate adjustments to be made.

Geoffrey Robinson: A good example where finance directors can get leant on, I suppose—with no insidious implication—would be some of the big banks, such as Royal Bank of Scotland, where even the non-executive directors had nothing to say as liabilities racked up. I wonder where the finance accounting officer was in that. It is another aspect of his position, not directly related to tax, but it is clear why singling out one aspect—in this case, tax—and giving it a special focus could have a bearing and give him a reinforced position on the board.

Mark Hoban: I have great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman's business experience. He comes to the House with some knowledge of large companies, but I am not yet persuaded. The case has not been made. It goes back to the point that I made at the start, which he and I first tussled with, about the lack of consultation. The Government have not gone out there in advance of the Bill to make the case for the requirement. If the case was made, we might well change our minds. That is why time is needed to sort out the issue and nail down exactly why it is needed and what the consequences are.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is part of the challenge. The case has not been made, which is why people outside are perplexed about the need for the measure.
	I have touched on materiality and talked about normal accounting systems. "Tax accounting arrangements" is a vague term. Is it simply the processes? Is it the technology or the people involved? What does "appropriate" mean? These are details that we need to take into account.
	The measure's impact assessment raises some questions. The Government say:
	"We forecast an improvement in Exchequer receipts of £140 million over 4 years."
	So, it would be quite helpful—perhaps before we reach schedule 46—if the Government were to produce an estimate of how the forecast was reached and what they expect to emerge as a consequence of their focusing responsibility on an individual.
	The impact assessment also highlights the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which I touched on earlier. The assessment says:
	"This measure draws on the US 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act which put obligations on senior officers of US corporations to certify amongst other things that: they have established and are monitoring certain internal controls, and they have disclosed any material weaknesses in those controls to the company auditors."
	That rang alarm bells in my mind, because the Act had a big impact on business in the United States and created some concern about whether the mooted takeover of the London stock exchange by the New York stock exchange would introduce extra-territorial regulation—whether Sarbanes-Oxley would apply here in the UK.
	The issue reminded me of a debate that I had with the current Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families when he was the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. On that occasion, we debated the Investment, Exchanges and Clearings Houses Bill, which was introduced as an attempt to avoid imposing extra-territoriality on UK businesses, triggered by concerns about the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley. I am therefore rather surprised that the Government have used that legislation to pray in aid this measure, because, at the time, the right hon. Gentleman, referring to a conversation with Christopher Cox, the then chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and Hank Paulson, the then US Treasury Secretary, said:
	"I think that they both share my analysis of the current dangers of the Sarbanes-Oxley regime, which is that the way in which it has been implemented is both burdensome and insufficiently risk-based and that therefore it does not achieve the initial intention."—[ Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 1039.]
	I should have thought that somebody in the Treasury might have remembered that exchange when drawing up the regulatory impact assessment, because they then could have said that perhaps Sarbanes-Oxley was not the best precedent to cite. Indeed, I should have thought that the Chancellor might have remembered the precedent, because, in a 2007 speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, he discussed the reforms that were being introduced in the UK and compared them with the US, saying:
	"During a visit to the US last year, I was struck by the extent to which the approach taken by Sarbanes-Oxley—overly burdensome and prescriptive rules—was now seen as the wrong response."
	I do not know whether the Financial Secretary shared the contents of the impact assessment with the Chancellor. If so, the Chancellor might then have remembered that he was quite sceptical about the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley and the prescriptive rules that it imposed.
	Of course, the issue goes right to the top, because even the Prime Minister recognised the implications. He said:
	"I was under the same pressure as US legislators to impose blanket proscriptions such as Sarbanes-Oxley. I resisted"—
	a great dividing line in politics, there—
	"in favour of maintaining a flexible principles-based approach. We will allow nothing to undermine that commitment."
	The Government have argued before that measures inspired by Sarbanes-Oxley are overly burdensome and prescriptive, but the measure before us rings alarm bells: the Treasury has not learned the mistakes of Sarbanes-Oxley and seeks to impose its rules and approach to tax accounting. Interestingly, Deloitte and Touche, when commenting on Sarbanes-Oxley, also queries its relevance, saying that it is
	"questionable how relevant the Sarbanes-Oxley experience should be here as the US legislation was developed specifically in relation to financial reporting and so arguably does not extend to tax return preparation process."
	Sarbanes-Oxley led to the significant deterioration in the relative competitiveness of the US when compared with other jurisdictions, but the Bill's regulatory impact assessment says that
	"it"—
	the measure—
	"has no impact on competition"
	and costs are "negligible". The Government could not have reached that conclusion without having consulted industry first, but they did not, so they are not in a good position to make that statement.
	Again, we return to the issue of consultation. The Government must understand the true cost to business. I am sure that Messrs. Sarbanes and Oxley, at the time of their Bill's passage through Congress, said, "Oh, don't worry, it will have no impact upon competition, it won't involve additional costs on business;" that they were quite breezy about it, in the same way that the Financial Secretary is quite breezy about it in the impact assessment that he has signed off; and that, only when it was too late, did they realise that it had a cost and an impact on the US's competitive position. I just counsel caution.
	The Treasury has rather rushed into the initiative, and it is not clear who its author is. I do not get the impression that HMRC has embraced it as warmly as it would if the initiative had been one of its own; and I do not know whether it was a follow-up to the G20 summit, whereby someone said, "Something must be done," or a response to the TUC's campaign on the tax gap—a political, knee-jerk reaction in the same way that Sarbanes-Oxley was to problems in the United States. It is not clear who is the father of this great idea.

Mark Hoban: The measure could be expensive, and that is part of the problem. No one knows quite how expensive it will be, because no one knows the detail of a measure that was published without consultation. We would have had a better idea of the cost if someone had bothered to ask business beforehand, rather than just slapping it into a Finance Bill as a cracking idea that might get a few cheers from Back Benchers, trade unions—whoever it was targeted at—and saying, "We'll just finesse the detail later." That is not good enough, given the issues that this country already faces about the competitiveness of its tax regime, predictability, stability and certainty.
	I am bemused by the clause, as are professional advisers and business. I am not even sure that we have a clear justification from the tax people. I talked about systems and materiality, and there are more than 20 taxes that could affect business. Does the clause apply to the accounting for each tax? Is it simply restricted to corporation tax, VAT, pay-as-you-earn and national insurance—the mainstream taxes? Or, will business have to look at other taxes, too? I have not even discussed its impact on UK subsidiaries of overseas businesses or how somebody in the UK will get comfort on overseas subsidiaries, because the issue goes back to materiality.

Geoffrey Robinson: The hon. Gentleman asks who fathered the provision; I think that it probably has many fathers. In parts of, for example, Barclays, it seems that no one, including the finance director knew what was going on, particularly in the separate overseas companies, many of which were seemingly set up for tax purposes. I do not know whether the Government intend to tackle that, but there is a real problem in making a chief finance officer sign off responsibility for the whole company. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that we are targeting the very biggest companies. If it is the intention to make the chief finance officer responsible for what happens in all a company's operations, although it is necessary, we must think carefully about what we are doing.

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend is dead right, and I agree with him entirely. The idea of bureaucracy regulating entrepreneurial banks will never be terribly effective.
	To return to clause 92, I am pleased that we are approaching the issue in the way that we are. I am sure that the Government will listen hard to what the industry says, and I am sure that we can get things right. As for why we are focusing on tax as we are, to me, that does not pose the sort of problem that it seems to pose for the hon. Member for Fareham. In view of the multiplicity of taxation arrangements burgeoning throughout the world, I can quite understand the position of the United States Government under President Obama and that of the German and French Governments, who have always been strong on this issue, and why we have a particular focus in the UK on strengthening tax function and tax accountability; the words in the Bill speak of all this. It seems inevitable that that should be part of the review that we are having, when so much of the tax take appears to be disappearing overseas. I am not sure that that is directly linked, but I cannot help but feel that it is part of the mentality that has led to this part of the Bill.
	I welcome the provisions. The chief finance office should be clearly seen to have an independent role in accounting to the board. When my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary puts the Government's case, I wonder whether he could tell us whether it is automatically assumed that the chief finance office will be a board member, because the Bill refers to officers or directors. It is terribly important that the person charged with that responsibility should be a director, not some officer who can escape a sense of personal responsibility. A finance office in a major British multinational or international company will feel a heavy personal commitment and a personal burden, which he will have to bear in the interests of the whole company, with a direct responsibility enshrined in law and a fine attached, related to the performance of that function. If a finance officer were to be fined, in all probability he would seek and obtain an indemnity from the company, and rightly so. Nevertheless, the fact that he has been fined will weigh heavily on him, if he is responsible in the exercise of his duties, and therefore reinforce the general sense of this part of the Bill, and the general purpose for which the Government have introduced it—and I am pleased to see it there.
	I am sure that the Financial Secretary will reassure us on the need for consultation and the other matters that the industry will bring to him in due course. We look forward to hearing what he has to tell us in that respect.

Jeremy Browne: The proposals are far-reaching in their implications and were introduced without meaningful notice or consultation. I have received representations from groups such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and from companies such as PricewaterhouseCoopers. They have raised a series of concerns with me, as they no doubt have with MPs from all parties, about the potential implications of what we are considering, including what they regard as potentially unforeseen implications. Indeed, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) read out a quotation from the Institute of Chartered Accountants that summed up those concerns precisely.
	I propose to highlight three concerns that my party and I have about the Government's proposals, and then to suggest how we might deal with them. The first concern is about the aspect of personal liability. All parties in the House would wish to see companies that failed to comply with the law dealt with accordingly, but the Government's proposal makes a distinction between the organisation and the individual. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked what implications that might have, and whether they might go further than the Government envisaged. It is therefore important to explore the aspect of personal liability in greater depth in Committee.
	Our second concern is about the lack of clear definition. Paragraph 8 of schedule 46 says that only the most recent senior accounting officer will be liable, but there will still be issues if errors have been made in the past. If the most recent senior accounting officer has been in post only for a short period, the provision may not be so satisfactory, whereas if he or she has been in post for a long time, we would be able to go back much further. There is therefore some doubt about how the provision will apply in practice.
	No one knows what HMRC thinks will constitute adequate or accurate reporting systems. One person's idea of adequacy may be markedly different from another person's. Indeed, in accountancy, one person's idea of accuracy may occasionally be different from another person's idea of accuracy. As far as I am aware, no guidelines have been published so far to clarify those points.
	My final point about the lack of definition is about the implications for UK multinationals based primarily in this country—a point that was made earlier. However, I do not think that the following point has been made: what if the senior accounting officer is not based in the United Kingdom, even if most of the company is? How will the law work in practice then?
	The third area of concern that I have identified in gathering together the themes that others have expressed to me relates to the regulatory burden and the costs involved. The rules will be up and running from October, and there is genuine anxiety that this does not provide a fair period for companies to respond and incorporate the new rules into their practices. My understanding is that the Government say that the new arrangements merely formalise the procedure that is often observed by companies, but all the representations that have been made to me by the industry bodies that I have just named suggest that the legislation goes further than that. There are also questions about the cost to business and the anticipated extra yield to the Exchequer, and about whether the additional money raised will be sufficient to justify the potential additional cost to business.
	Those are my concerns, based on my discussions with others. Thinking through these issues as carefully as I can has led me to come up with four brief guiding principles for seeking to address the situation. First, my party believes that we should support measures to improve accountancy procedures in the interest of transparency. Everyone would accept that we want to see companies complying with the law in a transparent way, and not unreasonably trying to avoid their obligations.
	I completely understand the Government's desire to maximise the tax yield within the laws of this country, particularly when we have such an enormous public deficit. The need for the Government to raise money is obvious for all to see. We also recognise, however, that there are many concerns over the wording, the short notice period, the regulatory burden and the personal penalties in schedule 46. It is therefore reasonable to allow this measure to go to Committee, because although the overall objective of greater transparency is reasonable, there will need to be further consideration of those specific points.
	The second point relates directly to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham, with which I have a lot of sympathy. It is logical to provide for some breathing space in which the rules can be reviewed, so that companies do not fall foul of them unwittingly. Some concerns have been raised with me, however. First, there could be a tendency for some companies—not those that observe best practice, which are unlikely to fall foul of the rules anyway—to see a year's delay as another year in which they can ignore the problem, and they might not be any better prepared when the legislation comes into force than they would have been if it had taken effect sooner. To be more cynical, one could suggest that other companies could use the year to give themselves more time to think about how to evade the spirit of the law.

Jeremy Browne: I completely accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and his honourable intentions. The trade-off that we always have to grapple with on these occasions is that if a measure has some merit—we all accept that there is some merit in the Government's proposals—we have to decide how long to delay introducing it in order to ensure that it will work even more effectively. There is a strong case for saying that the added benefit of having a more workable measure will justify the year's delay in implementation, as the hon. Gentleman's amendment suggests. However, I believe that such a delay would have potential downsides as well as advantages.
	My third point is that I hope the matter will be examined in further detail in Committee. I am sure that the Committee will not seek to remove the clause altogether today, and I hope that I will be able to table amendments in Committee that could reconcile these points, as that might be a more appropriate forum in which to discuss them.
	My final point is a broader matter of principle. Objections have been raised about the so-called concept of naming and shaming. I want to put on record that my party is not against naming and shaming per se—the practice might have a part to play—but we want to ensure that it is those who deliberately evade tax who are treated in that way, rather than those who have made a genuine, and in some cases very small, error. The state should not treat individuals and their reputations in a heavy-handed way. If it puts their names into the public arena in a way that damages their career prospects and other private interests, and subsequently finds that that action has been out of all proportion to the offence—which might have been committed unwittingly as well as being modest in scale—it will have exceeded its power in terms of its relative might and the individual over whom it wields its power. We need to observe that important principle in our deliberations. We need to strike a balance between transparency and effectiveness, and between the rights of the individual and the understandable desire of the Government to collect tax revenue legally owed to them.
	We accept that there is some virtue in the proposals, but they require considerable further attention, and it might not be desirable to bring these matters to a head this afternoon. After we have heard further representations in the House and externally, we should try to come up with proposals in Committee that are more satisfactory to more people who have a direct interest in these matters.

Robert Syms: I declare my interest in today's proceedings on the Finance Bill, as shown in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I agree with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). His proposal is very sensible, given the speed with which the Government are trying to rush through the measure.
	Although I have a number of questions, I am glad that the Minister has already said that he will tell the House more about the definition of a large company, because that will be useful for our debate. Under the provisions, a company will have to notify Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of the name of its senior accounting officer. I assume that it will also have to provide the company's address, but will it have to provide all the company's addresses for which the officer is responsible? Will he or she have to give their home address, as they will have some personal responsibility for what is discharged? Will the individual in question have to be resident—could they be a non-dom? These are important questions. HMRC does not require people to have DNA tests, but you never know.
	We have to be very careful when setting out what we want from senior accounting officers. We have already discussed subsidiaries, including overseas subsidiaries and those that are sometimes set up for particular financial transactions, such as the purchase of plant, and I think that there are difficulties involved in that. I also think that there are difficulties involved in the appointment of a new senior accounting officer. The first thing that he or she will have to do is go through all the accountancy procedures and conduct a risk analysis of every part of the business. In the case of large companies, that could not be done particularly quickly. We shall need to see HMRC guidance on what senior accounting officers have to do.
	We know that there will be penalties for inaccuracies, but it would be useful to be given a definition of what would be considered an inaccuracy. In any large organisation it is possible to make small mistakes involving minimal amounts of tax, and no sensible tax authority will take everything to the nearest penny. However, the individuals living under this regime will need to know about scale. In the case of large or significant tax liabilities, that would seem to be a sensible requirement.
	We are told that there will be a fine of £5,000 a company per year. If 20, 30, 50 or 150 companies were involved, could a multiple fine be imposed on a company and its subsidiaries, and could it be imposed over multiple years? What is the potential liability faced by individuals? As I said earlier, this is a bit different from limited liability. Could the fines be levied by HMRC, and is there an appeal process? According to the explanatory notes, a "reasonable excuse for...failure" will be accepted as a reason for HMRC not to levy fines, but we do not know how HMRC will be persuaded that an excuse was reasonable. There might be an argument between the tax authorities, which must discharge their responsibility to collect as much money as possible, and the company about what is reasonable.
	We need to know much more about the costs imposed on businesses. Even if the Minister qualifies what the impact assessment says about company size, I shall want to know whether the costs will be reduced for smaller companies. Will HMRC insist on the provisions applying to all limited companies at some point, and what impact would that have?
	We need much more information about clause 92. I think that it would be very useful if the amendment were accepted so that the implementation of the schedule could be delayed to allow proper consultation. It is important not to reduce the responsibilities of members of boards, and indeed those of auditors. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham might agree that auditors quite often avoid their responsibilities nowadays, and that many of our financial problems might be caused by that.
	There are a great many questions to be answered. I hope that the Minister can reassure us and that, by the time the Public Bill Committee sits, we shall have much more published information so that we can test the Government's proposal. We know that it is important to raise legitimate tax from companies, and the American example might be a useful one, but I shall not be in favour of the proposed arrangement unless I am given a great deal more information about the impact on business and individuals, and about the Government's direction of travel.

John Howell: That is an interesting point, but I do not believe that the trust that is necessary between the bodies being consulted and whoever is consulting them will be strengthened by the fact that they are being consulted only when the structure and philosophy of legislation has already gone quite a long way down the road.
	Let me say a bit more about philosophy. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a valid distinction between the philosophical differences between the approaches to the clause adopted by the two sides of the Committee which, I think, are exemplified by paragraphs 23 and 24 of the explanatory note on clause 92. Paragraph 24 establishes what we consider to be the better principle-based approach in stating:
	"Ensuring appropriate tax accounting arrangements are in place is no more than compliant companies will be doing already."
	There are two points to be made about that.
	"Ensuring appropriate tax accounting arrangements are in place"
	is the principle that we would expect to underlie the clause, while the words
	"is no more than compliant companies will be doing already"
	raise the question of why the clause is needed at all. What evidence will there be of the number of non-compliant companies, and how is that number to be established?
	Paragraph 23, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, states:
	"Currently, there is no legal obligation on any particular director...to ensure that the company has appropriate tax accounts arrangements."
	To me, that illustrates a tendency towards a rules-based system which, in my view, has a number of negative effects on companies' positive approach to organising their affairs. I am in the principles-based camp; I do not think that we should tie things up unnecessarily.
	I wish to turn to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act comparison, because a number of issues arise there. Given that a comparison has been made with that measure and that reliance has been placed on the experience of it, I wonder whether any reasonably substantial and detailed work has been done to examine its effects. It is fine to talk in terms of generalisations and broad comparisons, but we need detailed experience if we are going to rely on it. We have seen one aspect of how that measure could materially affect companies: the additional costs and obligations that it puts on them. I understand that the accounting profession takes the firm view that additional costs arise from the measure.
	The other issue that Sarbanes-Oxley raises has already been touched on in relation to materiality. The Act introduced something related to financial accounting rather than to tax accounting. As I understand it, built into that system is a concept of materiality. We need an indication from the Minister as to whether we are now accepting the concept of materiality in tax returns as well as in financials.
	It would be useful to understand a bit better the way in which what is required by the clause will interact with the existing accounting framework. Most accounting systems comply with UK generally accepted accounting principles, but are we now saying that changes will be needed to UK GAAP to reflect the tax aspects of the measure? Are we saying that, for tax purposes, we will need additional requirements above UK GAAP? The measure does not address the question of integration within one system and how we judge, in terms of the prospect for revenues, other accounting regulations—not just UK GAAP but overseas regulations.
	For the reasons that I and that many hon. Members have given in light of the uncertainty surrounding the clause, I support the amendment.

Stephen Timms: We have had a useful discussion on this important measure. In the Budget, the Government took difficult decisions to support fiscal consolidation, taking steps to support businesses and households, but also setting out the credible path that we must have to return public finances to sustainability in a fair way. Protecting tax revenues is an important part of that. It is right that as part of our fiscal consolidation, we act now—I recognise that there is some urgency—to lock in tax compliance and to protect tax revenues.
	The majority of senior accounting officers are already ensuring that appropriate tax accounting arrangements are in place in their companies or groups. For them, the burden of the new requirement will be minimal, requiring little more than to certify the existence of what is already in place. However, a minority—I think it is quite a small minority—of companies do not have robust systems and processes in place. It is difficult for either the company or HMRC to know whether the right tax is being paid. We want identified individuals to take responsibility for putting that right. I will give a couple of examples.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to him for making that point.
	The hon. Member for Taunton is right that it does not make sense to defer this measure for a year. There are certainly some detailed measures that we need to introduce and debates that we need to have, and as I have signalled, some amendments will need to be tabled. There would, of course, be a cost to deferring for a year. We need to get on with it, and the Government's response in terms of the fiscal consolidation we have set out needs to proceed. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Fareham and his hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw their amendment. If they do not, I hope the Committee will reject it.

David Gauke: I do not know whether it is appropriate to say so in these circumstances, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.
	Vehicle excise duty was one of the stories of last year's Finance Bill and the 2008 Budget. I will be relatively brief—and I can assure the Exchequer Secretary that this issue will not keep her here until the early hours of the morning—but it may be useful to return to the proposals in that Budget. In particular, I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the tenacious work of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) in examining and unravelling the Government's case.
	The Committee will recall that in the 2008 Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his proposals to reform vehicle excise duty, which included introducing a greater range of gradations in bands on the basis of CO2 emissions. He told the House that that was a sensible green measure, saying that
	"the road tax system should do more to support the use of more carbon-efficiency...There will be an incentive to encourage drivers to choose the least polluting car."—[ Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 297.]
	My hon. Friend started to examine the details of that policy and several points emerged.
	First, the Chancellor claimed that the proposal was a green measure, but it clearly sought to raise revenue. Of course, the proposals on vehicle excise duty in this Finance Bill have been largely shaped by the arguments and the analysis of last summer. Thanks to my hon. Friend's work, it emerged that the original proposals would reduce motor vehicle emissions by 160,000 tonnes a year by 2020. To put that in context, that is a fraction of 1 per cent. of total transport CO2 emissions, which in 2006 amounted to 120 million tonnes. We can see immediately that the proposals' green credentials were somewhat weakened, and I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary gave her assessment of the green benefits of the original proposals and of the proposals in clause 14.
	Another green argument needs to be addressed. It was persuasively argued that a number of older cars would essentially become unsaleable and have to be scrapped as a consequence of the new VED scheme, which would have an environmental impact. I do not wish to divert from the subject of VED, but that point throws up the issue of the environmental impact of the car scrappage schemes. It would be helpful if the Minister said a word or two on the environmental pluses and minuses of scrapping older cars. Clearly, newer cars are more efficient and, by and large, have lower CO2 emissions, but quite a lot of carbon is involved in car manufacture. I ask that purely to inquire about the Government's analysis.

David Gauke: Indeed, it would be a great omission not to mention him.
	Is the measure retrospective? If someone has bought a car that was made or registered after 2001, and subsequently found that they will pay more VED in future years, they are committed to that car. They are stuck with it and are faced with a tax bill that they did not anticipate. People argued whether the provision was retrospective—I think that it is —and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed her view. On 14 May 2008, in column 1495 of  Hansard, she referred to page 121, paragraph A.97 of the Red Book, which, she said, contained details of the retrospective element. It seems to me that there is a retrospective element, and that point applies to this clause, albeit that the effects are less dramatic than perhaps was originally envisaged last year. Will the Minister confirm her interpretation of that point?
	That raises the issue of unfairness and of who will be hit by the provisions. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked who would be affected by the change in VED. Let me put that in the context of the clause, although that question could still be asked of the original proposals. It would appear that some 1.2 million drivers will experience rises of more than £200, and that many others will be affected. They would say that it is very difficult to change their behaviour when they have already acquired the cars, which comes back to the green taxation point I was making a moment or so ago.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on an element of the Bill that I readily concede—and as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) noted—is a less contentious than it was last year. What made it so contentious last year was the element of retrospection, and I remember an interesting debate about whether all new taxes had a degree of retrospection. However, many hon. Members felt keenly that the proposals on VED last year had a greater degree of retrospection than most tax proposals.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) says that that is the subject of the next debate, which is about fuel. He is right, and people who have to drive longer distances because they live in remote rural areas are going to use more fuel. However, some people in urban areas may not need to drive at all, whereas people in remote rural areas may have no choice—for example, they may have no other way of getting to work. My party has said that we should at least explore options for giving assistance with VED to people whose principal address is in a very remote rural area.

Jeremy Browne: Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in her response. I recognise, as I am sure all hon. Members do, that there are practical considerations for people on low incomes who wish to work and for whom motoring represents quite a large proportion of their overall expenditure. That is particularly true in rural areas, where the need to drive and to drive longer distances is greater. However, I do not accept that that alone makes the case against VED differentials. In fact, one could argue that it would be more appropriate to have more pronounced differentials, so that people with low-emission cars are incentivised to an even greater degree compared with people who have high-emission vehicles.
	That is why I mentioned in passing—Mr. Atkinson, I hope that you agree that, if I touch on it only briefly, it is relevant—why I am keen to see measures introduced that do not have significant revenue-raising implications, such as giving people tax exemption on residents' parking if they have low-emission cars. That positively incentivises environmentally responsible behaviour. Not only can such measures have a positive impact on low-income groups, but they send out a powerful signal about our collective environmental responsibilities.
	My party has argued for an initial VED levy to be charged on new cars and graded so that the charge is highest on high-emission cars. We talked about a so-called showroom tax and, in effect, the Government are introducing a variant on that theme by setting a higher initial rate. One can brand measures in different ways, but the objective remains the same, which is to encourage people to think about buying a lower-emission new car by giving them a financial incentive to do so.
	I am not sure that the Government's policy is entirely consistent across the piece. The so-called scrappage scheme is to be introduced, which seems to be designed to encourage people to buy new vehicles, whereas some might interpret the VED measures as a fairly strong inducement to stick with their existing vehicles, as doing so means that they will not incur the additional higher VED rate in year one. I am interested to know whether the Minister believes that the measure will stimulate the sales of new cars, as some MPs, especially those representing west midlands constituencies and parts of the country with a motor manufacturing tradition, want. Are the Government trying to stimulate sales through the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but trying to restrict them through the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Treasury? If so, people are being sent conflicting signals.
	We are pleased that the measure is not retrospective. It seems to be far less controversial that last year's VED measure, and it sends out a powerful environmental signal. Although we do not accept it in its totality and think it could be modified and improved, the broad principle behind the Government's thinking seems to us to be aimed in the right direction.

Rob Marris: For the purpose of this debate, I declare an interest in that I drive a car with CO2 emissions of 119 g/km and my wife drives one with emissions of 108 g/km.
	I am delighted that the Government reconsidered the retrospective measures proposed in Budget 2008, following the work done by me—I think that I was the first person to raise the subject in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who was present for the early part of this debate. It raises a question about the concept of being open to discussion and public debate and the tendency in the UK body politic to decry changes of position by Government or Opposition parties as U-turns, when such changes are often the result of productive discussions, informed by fresh information. That is what my Government did in relation to the VED proposals made last year, which were withdrawn and have been reintroduced, in a very much reworked form, in clause 14. They are now much better.
	I did want to say a little about the general structure of VED, because I think it is entirely right that it should be graded according to the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has some reservations about that, particularly because of the impact the duty could have on lower socio-economic groups driving older cars, which tend to be bigger-engined. I would caution that if we moved away from the proposal in clause 14 to grade VED according to emissions to one based on engine size, that could present difficulties for diesel engines, for example. The car I drive has a diesel engine of approximately 1400 cc and it produces a much lower rate of CO2 emissions per kilometre than a 1300 cc model of the same car with a petrol engine. So one has to be a little careful. I know that there are concerns about diesel engines and particulates, but I am told that such concerns are sometimes overstated.
	May I say, somewhat parenthetically, that I welcome the slight change to the company car tax regime on CO2 emissions per kilometre, which I believe is a progressive measure, referred to in paragraph A.119 on page 167 of the Red Book? There is also a reference in paragraph A.120 on the same page to the lifting of the £80,000 cap on the list price, which I must confess I did not previously know existed and seems rather bizarre.
	Why does clause 14 still provide for the "reduced rate", as it is called? My understanding, as it states in paragraph 28 of the explanatory notes to the clause, is that the reduced rate
	"applies to cars using alternative fuels or featuring a hybrid fuel-electric powertrain. Alternative fuels include Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Compressed Natural Gas and high blend (85 per cent. content) bioethanol."
	On grounds of tax simplification and the rate differentials in tables 1 and 2 of clause 14—they are not, in any case, very great—I would urge the Government to reconsider whether the reduced rate should exist at all. That consideration is particularly relevant when some environmental concerns have been raised about whether we should encourage the use of LPG fuel in vehicles.
	According to table C6 on page 131 of the Red Book, for 2009-10, VED is projected to raise £5.6 billion. Given the changes that will take place from 2010-11, as set out in tables 1 and 2 of clause 14, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon what the projected VED revenues will be for 2010-11 and even for 2011-12, bearing in mind that VED principally covers light passenger vehicles, but also commercial vehicles, light vans and so forth.
	I start from the point—as, I suspect, do most hon. Members apart from the flat earthers on climate change—that it is a good thing to use taxation measures to discourage polluters. Cars that emit higher levels of CO2 per mile driven pollute more and mess up the planet more, so I salute what the Government have done in recent years by introducing the 15 bands of VED in an attempt to change consumer behaviour through a tax mechanism. I similarly salute what the last Conservative Government did, following the efforts of the Campaign for Lead-free Air of which I was a member, to encourage motorists through a tax mechanism to switch from leaded to unleaded petrol. That produced changes very quickly—both in consumer behaviour and the type of vehicles produced by motor manufacturers within the UK, including the west midlands, and abroad.
	In recent months, because of the oil price spike last year and what the Conservative party refers to as the age of austerity, I understand that sales of small cars are increasing proportionately to large cars. I would categorise a Ford Mondeo estate as a large car in respect of its dimensions and, in many versions, its engine size. I view the change as a step forward, but I stress the word "proportionately", because although small cars may have recorded more sales in recent months, overall sales have fallen markedly. That, of course, adversely affects the motor industry around the country.
	Table 1 in clause 14 shows that a new vehicle will be exempt from VED in the first year when it produces fewer than 130 g of CO2 per kilometre driven. That is a good step forward and, in future years, I urge the Government to keep the matter under review with the aim of lowering the exemption threshold from, say, 130 g to 120 g. The European Union has been striving against backward-looking motor manufacturers—those manufacturers are now, sadly, reaping the whirlwind, as are their workers—to get the average for each manufacturer's fleet production down to 130 g. Table 1 currently provides for a first-year exemption only for those vehicles described as below the EU average.

Jeremy Browne: I share the hon. Gentleman's instincts. However, I am always a little cautious about exempting only such small cars because that makes the person in the street think it is just a ruse to provide the appearance of environmentalism given it is so hard to find models that actually qualify for the exemption. Surely there may be some benefit in exempting some reasonably popular models of cars; they may not be right at the end of the emissions scale, but they are nevertheless near it. That might offer people what they regard as a genuine inducement rather than a bit of political manoeuvring.

Angela Eagle: I hope that I can deal with some of the points raised by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends on clause 14. As has been pointed out, the clause makes changes to vehicle excise duty rates for cars and vans, and those changes take effect from 20 April 2010. The clause introduces first year rates of VED for brand-new cars, as was, I think, mentioned by all who spoke. First year rates will be chargeable on the first vehicle licence taken out on a new car from 1 April 2010. They are intended to influence, up front, the purchasing choices of drivers who are buying brand new cars by acting as a strong signal at the point of purchase that people can save money by choosing lower-emission cars.
	The introduction of first year rates means that cars emitting less than 130 g of carbon dioxide per kilometre will pay no duty on their first vehicle licence. Cars emitting between 131 and 165 g per kilometre will pay the same amount for their first year rate as they will for all subsequent licences. For cars emitting more than 165 g per kilometre, first year rates will be higher than the standard rates applicable on all subsequent licences. Only those new cars with the very highest emissions will pay the top rate of £950.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Browne) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), and to a lesser extent my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—the latter talked about the distributional effect of the measure, and I will deal with that point separately, if he will allow me to—all pointed out that tax measures try to change behaviour, certainly when they are based on trying to incentivise activities that have a smaller carbon footprint. That is a clear way of trying to change behaviour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, the measures are also revenue raisers.
	Revenue raising is an important aspect of the part of the Budget documents that we are discussing. The remainder of our debates today are about duties that raise a certain amount of revenue. We must not forget, or lose sight of, the fact that it is perfectly reasonable for Governments to raise revenue with which to finance the things that they do with public money. I often have that discussion with the many people who come to tell me that we should reduce all the taxes that are levied, but who never tell me where we can find the extra revenue that they wish to see spent on whatever is in their interest; in the context of vehicle excise duty, that is often on roads or other infrastructure. I can see the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire wriggling in his place; I am happy to let him intervene.

Angela Eagle: We may be able to discuss scrappage in more detail at another stage of the Bill. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, however, the point of the scrappage scheme is that to qualify, a car must be scrapped, so we are talking about replacing existing cars with newer, more energy-efficient cars. Clearly, on the issue of whole-life costs, there would have to be an assessment of whether we save on the environmental costs of making new cars, and some work is being done in that area. However, I would not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the idea that the primary aim of the scheme is anything other than to try to give a temporary, and I think much-needed, boost to a great British manufacturing sector that is in great need of support. That is the point of scrappage.
	I shall now deal with the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made. His argument was hung on an amendment that has not been selected, so we shall not talk about that, except to say that it would definitely be retrospective to try to go back to engine size rather than CO2 emissions as a basis for VED. We were the first country to base vehicle excise duties on CO2 emissions, and six more European countries now do so. We have achieved major reductions in emissions from our car fleet as a result—partially, at least—of that change. It sends good signals to consumers, but we need to improve on and even increase those signals if we are to hit our very demanding targets for averting dangerous climate change. Clearly, that is something in which we all have a direct interest.
	My right hon. Friend was right, however, to focus on the distributional aspects of progress in new, greener technology, because, as the Committee on Climate Change, which the House tasked with taking a closer look at these matters, said in no uncertain terms in its report to Parliament, there are often distributional effects when we switch to lower-carbon activities. As a country and as a society, we will not be able to persuade our electorate that we need to make progress and avert climate change if we cannot also demonstrate that we have a fairness agenda. In other words, if there is no fairness for those who are poor and least able to buy new, or shift from existing goods to newer, more energy-efficient ones, we will not get public support for the changes that we need.
	My right hon. Friend is therefore right to worry about some of those issues. We have some data that hint at connections, but not in the sort of the detail that he would like. Some data suggest that low-income households are more likely to own cars with smaller engines. However, the hon. Member for Taunton was right in his analysis that the poorest do not own cars, so the distributional shape of the tax is not the same as that of, for example, tobacco duties.
	We also have data to suggest that the majority of the cars that emit the most carbon are owned by higher-income households. Again, the data are not geographically well represented or spread in the way that my right hon. Friend wanted. I am happy to talk to him to ascertain whether we can analyse the distributional impact of the shift from high to low CO2 emitting cars on the engine pool, and particularly on his constituents and many of mine, who are not always known for going to the latest car showroom and getting the latest model.
	My right hon. Friend may also like to correspond with the Committee on Climate Change, which is developing some expertise in the matter, to ascertain whether it can study the issue.

Stewart Hosie: I would leave the statutory instrument to decide that. As I have said, if the SI were to opt for a two-way regulator, I would be perfectly content, because this is about stability, not about who wins political points. As I said in last year's debate, when the Conservatives changed their minds, I do not care whether we have a fair fuel stabiliser, a fuel duty regulator or the version proposed by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), a former transport Minister. We need to finalise a deal with families, hauliers and businesses to smooth out price spikes so that we do not experience the shocks to the system that we encountered in 2005, 2006 and 2008.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is talking about smoothing out bumps, which I am always in favour of doing, especially when I am doing my ironing. Will he tell us a bit about where he would set the baseline, because that is important? If one is smoothing out the bumps, one has to have a place where one thinks the price is reasonable, and that is very difficult area of this entire debate. We all have to remember that we are dealing with a very volatile commodity price.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I agree that there needs to be flexibility on the baseline and that it needs to be reviewed regularly, but that in no way undermines the stability that could be brought to fuel prices. The stabiliser has a number of advantages. Leaving aside the big advantage that it protects the public from spikes in oil price, it helps price stability as a whole. Fuel prices can contribute to inflation significantly, so the stabiliser would assist the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England in ensuring that its attempts to target inflation were not affected by volatile international markets.
	We have some difference with the Scottish National party on how we would pay for and justify our approach. The hon. Gentleman makes the case in his amendment that the Government benefit from increased VAT when oil prices increase and that that windfall can be used to reduce fuel duty. I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will make the point—that, in itself, does not make it wrong—that consumers then spend less on other things. With an increase in the VAT revenue obtained from fuel, there tends to be a decrease in revenue from other areas. However, there is a link with North sea oil production and the revenue that comes from it. When oil prices fall there is a shortfall in that duty, but when they rise there is an increase in that duty, as the numbers for the past couple of years show. In 2008-09, the revenue from North sea oil increased by 66 per cent. when oil prices were increasing, whereas the revenue will halve for 2009-10—at least that is the Treasury's estimate—as oil prices fall. That is a case of what happens when fuel prices move in opposite directions. Thus, we believe that over a cycle—over a reasonably long period—this proposal would be revenue neutral, and that we can do things in a more cautious way. The proposal would provide stability to not only personal finances, but the public finances.
	The environmental case is that if the price of carbon were stabilised, it would be easier for businesses to plan ahead. Environmental taxes work most effectively when they are kept stable—a point made by the Stern review—and there are no risks of fluctuations in the marginal costs that could increase the total cost of any mitigation policy. As far as our carbon emission target is concerned, it would be beneficial to have a mechanism ensuring that we were not quite so dependent on volatile international oil markets.
	Finally, some 20 businesses cover 99 per cent. of fuel sales. They should be able to administer a fuel stabiliser, and we want the Government to investigate whether that would be practical. Consultation would be needed as to how that would work precisely—for example, how frequently it would need to be reset, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned.
	This proposal could be a useful addition to the fuel duty structure—

Jeremy Browne: In that case, I look forward to the fair alcohol stabiliser that the Conservatives will no doubt introduce in due course when the core ingredients of beer, for example, go up, as commodities do in the market place.
	Both the Conservatives and the Scottish nationalists are extremely coy about the downside of their proposals. I noticed that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) said that the purpose of amendment 13 was to smooth spikes in oil prices. What he did not say—I can only infer that this must be the case—was that he would also smooth out the troughs: that is, that he would put prices up. Otherwise, he would not be smoothing out anything at all. There has to be a downside as well as an upside. The Conservative spokesman, using almost exactly the same language, said that his amendment would smooth out the bumps. That is the difference between the SNP and the Conservatives; the Conservatives deal with bumps, not spikes. Presumably, he would also smooth out the dips at the same time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), with characteristic diligence, has done some more research into the effects of Conservative party policy. I must admit that I look forward to the Conservatives distributing leaflets on the issue in my constituency—as Michael Ashcroft put so much money into their endeavours, they must be able to afford to do so. Let me run through the effect of their policy. This is not a party political point—it is central to amendment 11.
	According to the average UK fuel prices published on the AA website, at the time of last year's Budget, March 2008, a litre of unleaded petrol cost 106.8p. It cost 118.2p in June, when the House had the opportunity to vote on the Budget proposals. The price rose by 11.4p between the Budget and the vote in the House, which allowed the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say that the fair fuel stabiliser would cut the cost of petrol by 5p a litre.
	However, with his characteristic generosity, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute said that he had calculated the saving to the motorist of last summer's Conservative party policy at 5.7p a litre. That seemed very popular, and people asked me why the Liberal Democrats opposed the policy. They said that the rises in prices were extremely unpopular, and that the Conservatives seemed to have reached a brilliant conclusion. They seemed to know better than the market, and to have an electoral advantage in pursuing that option.
	Unfortunately—and this is the twist—petrol prices started to fall rather dramatically just as the Conservatives chained themselves to their policy. I am again indebted to the research done by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, who showed that the price of a litre of unleaded petrol had fallen, according to the AA website, to an average of 90.6p by March 2009. A fall of 16.2p since that year's Budget was dramatic enough, but the fall from the peak of the market was close to 30p. That peak roughly coincided with the period when the Tories were energetically championing the fair fuel stabiliser most energetically in this House.
	What would be the impact on motoring if amendment 11 were agreed to? I have done a calculation, and I am afraid to say—this will come as a shock to hon. Members across the Committee—that the amendment would impose a crippling rise in duty on every motorist in the country.
	The Conservatives may have keen environmental reasons for wanting to increase petrol prices so markedly but, if they do, I do not understand why they should be so coy about them. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will tell us why his party is not selling the policy with vigour, because I am about to explain what its impact would be.
	As I said, at the time of last year's Budget, a litre of unleaded petrol cost 106.8p, but that had fallen to 90.6p by March 2009. If amendment 11 had been in operation at that time, it would have brought about an 8.1p increase in fuel duty. To be fair, the Government raised fuel duty by 2p in December 2008 and by a further 1.84p in April 2009, so it seems only reasonable to take those rises away from the figure that would otherwise form the basis of the calculation. If a provision equivalent to amendment 11 had been passed last year, motorists would have had to pay an extra 4.5p, approximately, for a litre of unleaded petrol over and above what they in fact have to pay at the pump at present.
	That would have been the impact of the Conservative amendment. One could call it smoothing out the bumps, or putting up the price of petrol for motorists across the country. The Scottish National party has a variant on that, and it is perfectly honourable for both parties to take that approach, but they should be explicit about their intentions.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) made it clear that the object of the exercise was to get rid of spikes in prices. Does the hon. Gentleman understand how the haulage industry works? The fact that hauliers use long-term fuel contracts that cannot reflect price spikes has caused many companies, especially those in rural areas, to run into difficulties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned food stabilisers, but in Scottish rural areas—such as my constituency or the areas represented by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) or the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)—everything comes by road because there is no alternative. As a result, fuel price rises feed through to ordinary goods, hitting shops, pubs and every small business in towns and villages throughout our constituencies. Stabilisation will get rid of the massive spikes in fuel prices, and the difficulties associated with them.

Jeremy Browne: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion.
	That would have a serious impact on motorists. It is only reasonable that the parties point that out in this House and to our constituents.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention, as that evidence reinforces my case. I could provide further examples from my constituency, but I believe that I have already made the point.
	Alongside the higher costs, we need to consider the impact of not only fuel duty, but VAT. The fact that the price is higher means that, as well as paying more for their fuel, people are paying more VAT. It is not just that the individual faces higher costs; the Treasury is then reaping more benefit from the misfortune of the people who have no choice but to pay these higher prices. That provides yet another reason for those on the Treasury Bench to look positively on these proposals.
	Apart from the cost of fuel, this problem is highly burdensome to my constituents. As a matter of course, people living in the highlands and islands and other rural parts of the country have much longer distances to travel. I mentioned Dalwhinnie; someone living there who chooses to commute to work in Inverness faces a daily round trip of about 120 miles—a substantial fuel cost by any measure. It is also worth saying that anyone living in Dalwhinnie who wants to go to a supermarket faces a 60-mile round trip. Just obtaining the basic necessities of life, quite outside the work environment, necessitates a long journey, and in other constituencies the distances can sometimes be even greater. Many tens of thousands of miles can be involved for people just to commute back and forth to work and to go about their daily business—it is not in any way unusual.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome eloquently addressed the third element of the triple whammy of additional costs and pressures in relation to fuel for those who live in remote, rural areas: the availability of public transport. For those who live in Dalwhinnie, there is no local bus service—there is an occasional Citylink coach service, but that requires a two-mile walk on to the main A9 roadway. My hon. Friends who have driven up and down that way from time to time will know that walking from the village to the motorway in any conditions other than the most clement is not ideal. In Carrbridge, there is no local bus service, and in places such as Fort Augustus and Drumnadrochit, a bus every two hours would be regarded as a high-frequency service.
	Such frequency or availability of public transport provides people with no realistic alternative to car use for necessary journeys. That is why I said in an intervention that in places such as the highlands and islands, using a car and filling it with fuel is not a luxury but a necessity; it is the only way in which people can go about their usual business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute observed, environmental incentives in fuel duty can apply only when a genuine choice or alternative is on offer, and for many of my constituents that is simply not the case. For such people, the environmental incentive argument for fuel duty is not right.
	The case for the measure that we propose is accentuated by the current economic situation. We have seen a 75 per cent. increase in unemployment in the Highland council area, and many costs are increasing. For example, on price differentials, the latest rural Scotland price survey showed that food was 11 per cent. more expensive in rural areas covered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise than in urban Scotland.  [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross rightly observes from a sedentary position, part of the reason for those excess costs is the impact of the fuel price on transporting those goods to village shops and individuals. People are affected not just by the cost of journeys, but by the cost of goods and services.

Michael Weir: I shall be brief. We on the Scottish national party Benches will support the amendment tonight, despite the disgraceful failure of the Liberals to support our excellent amendment on the previous vote. We are very forgiving people.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a good speech and very good points about public transport. When I travel on the train from London to Montrose, I can get a bus from Montrose to Brechin, where I live. That is relatively easy. Recently, my trusty old Honda—that should be rusty old Honda now; I shall certainly go for the Government's scrappage scheme—was in the garage, and I found myself having to get from my home to my offices, which I found difficult.
	One of my assistants who lives in Brechin travels to my office in Arbroath. He cannot get in for 9 am, despite those being two of the larger towns in the county. He has to go via Montrose on the bus to Angus college because that is the only public transport available. It is extremely difficult for people to travel around by public transport, even within the main towns. Outwith the main towns, if one goes up to the glens of Angus—I am sure it is the same elsewhere—there is little or no bus service. Even the intercity buses that travel between the cities will not stop in many of these areas, so one has to make several connections to get to, say, Dundee or Aberdeen. There is a real problem of alternatives to public transport, which is why cars are so important in rural areas.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also made an important point about the price of petrol and about petrol stations. In Brechin, there is now only one petrol station, which is attached to a small Tesco store. On the main road that runs from Dundee to Aberdeen, there is another petrol station, but its prices are astronomical because it has a captive audience, so to speak. The map that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) produced is very interesting and shows the area that the scheme would cover. Very little of my constituency—only the remoter glens—falls into that area, but that in turn produces another problem. People living in those glens require the benefit of the proposed scheme, but there are no petrol stations.
	One point that has not come out of the debate so far is that petrol stations have disappeared from many rural areas. People have to get in their cars not only to go to supermarkets and to commute to work, but to find a petrol station, because they simply do not exist in many areas any more. Many small, independent rural petrol stations have gone—effectively driven out of business by the majors. In my constituency, one will be lucky to find a petrol station that is not run either by Shell or Esso. I believe that there is one Mobil station left, but that is it; the independents have gone. Even under the proposed scheme, there would be a potential difficulty with persuading petrol stations to become involved.
	The proposed scheme is good and important, but I have some queries about the wording of the amendment and, for the first time in my life, agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), because proposed new section 14G(5)(c) states that regulations will "define 'remote rural areas'". I understand that point, and papers may be available elsewhere, but I have a horrible memory of serving on the Committee that scrutinised what became the Energy Act 2004. In it, there was a wonderful power defining the area where it would be possible to cap charges for renewable energy. Everybody assumed that that area was the highlands and islands of Scotland and gaily passed the legislation, but we then found that it was not; it was only some of the islands of Scotland. That has been a source of contention ever since, so there is a danger in not defining exactly what one means by "remote rural areas".
	I must accept that, apart from the glens, most of my constituency does not constitute a remote rural area. There are difficulties, however, and people in those areas would have to go to other areas to find petrol in the first place. Defining "qualifying retail outlets" would also be a problem because of the lack of such outlets in the remote rural areas that form part of my constituency. The outlets that people use are not in remote areas but in the more populated, coastal area, because that is the only place where one can get petrol in Angus. There are difficulties with the amendment, but that does not mean that we will not support it, because we will.
	We have heard a lot about how the situation affects individuals and families, and goods going into the area, and it is true, because the lack of an alternative to road transport means that the price of fuel feeds through to the price of everything. Everything in rural areas costs more because it costs more to transport it there, but, when intervening on the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), I made the point that it also affects businesses that are based in, and try to transport goods out of, rural areas. Many are food-based, farming or food-processing businesses, and their products have a relatively short shelf life, so they have to move them quickly and pay the costs of doing so. The situation impacts on people's ability to set up, run and maintain rural businesses, which are important in this period of recession, as employment in rural areas is under considerable pressure. We must maintain that employment, so anything that creates greater costs and increased pressure for such businesses is wrong. It is wrong that they face the discriminatory fuel cost before us. For all those reasons, we will support the amendment.
	Things are slightly better, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) discussed the Scottish Government's wonderful scheme for road-equivalent transport, which is doing great things for the western isles. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) was a bit sniffy about it, but I should remind him that while his party and the Labour party were in power for eight years in Scotland, there was no road-equivalent tariff and no attempt to do anything for any island. The SNP Government have made a real start, and we are making progress.
	For all those reasons, we will support the amendment, despite our differences with our Liberal friends.

Alistair Carmichael: Their excuses are laughable, and the joke has worn rather thin for my constituents over the years.
	There was a time when I began to think that we were making a small degree of progress on this issue. On 24 April last year, I raised the matter with the Chancellor in Treasury questions. He accepted my argument, and spoke of his own personal experience. He said:
	"Having filled up my car with diesel in Lewis just a couple of weeks ago, I am acutely aware of how high the petrol prices are."
	He went on:
	"I am struck by the variation in petrol prices across the highlands and islands; they vary substantially...the price of diesel seems to vary quite a bit depending on which side of the Minch one is on."—[ Official Report, 24 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1461.]
	I will return later to the point about stretches of water but that was the Chancellor accepting our argument. It does not get much better than that. The Chancellor accepted that he knew about the problem because he had a family connection with the western isles.
	As a result of that exchange, I was offered—and accepted—a meeting, to which I took the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I give all credit to the Minister for the conduct of that meeting. It was very open, frank, friendly and constructive. It was held on 4 June, and the conclusion was that Treasury officials would come up with an analysis of the proposal, that proper authoritative work would be done, and that we would then reach some conclusion.
	Summer turned to autumn, and autumn turned to winter. On 24 November, the Minister wrote to me. I thought, "Well, this is great. We have waited five and a half months. There will surely be at least three volumes coming our way." Instead, we got a two-page letter that did absolutely nothing other than restate the rather laughable reasons that had been used in the past to block this eminently sensible measure. I felt a bit like a child waking up on Christmas morning and finding only ashes in my stocking.
	First, the observation was made that the high price of fuel was
	"the result of market conditions, in particular the extra costs involved in transporting fuel to relatively inaccessible locations."
	I appreciate that, when viewed from the Treasury, Orkney and Shetland might seem like an inaccessible location, but is the Minister really telling us that the 15p a litre premium that is paid by my constituents is simply down to transportation? I do not believe that nonsense, and an instance recently brought to my attention refutes it.
	For some time, fuel has been supplied to us in Orkney by a company from Caithness. It is taken from Gill's Bay, on the less fashionable side of the Pentland Firth, to St Margaret's Hope in South Ronaldsay, on an open deck in a road tanker. For some time that option was not available, so the company in Caithness took it in a tanker from Caithness down to Aberdeen, put it on a ferry and took it to Orkney. It was able to do all that at a price lower than that charged by the local supplier. Surely we can all now accept that whatever the reason for the increased price of fuel in my constituency, it is nothing to do with road transport.
	The Minister made two more points in her letter. I hope that she will explain the basis of her thinking, because what we see in these letters is not a reference to the substantial work that we were promised, but merely the politics of assertion. She wrote that a fuel duty rebate was
	"likely to increase the amount of duty lost through fraud"
	—I must say that I am less than impressed with the slight to my constituents—
	"by creating greater opportunities and incentives for false accounting or fuel smuggling."
	The Minister offered no evidence in support of that assertion, although she had five and a half months in which to come up with it. When she responds to the debate, will she undertake to place the evidence that she acquired over those five and a half months in the House of Commons Library? We shall wait to hear what she has to say.
	The second point that the Minister made in her letter was:
	"Having different duty rates in different areas could well create perverse incentives for motorists to drive further in order to fill up on 'low-duty' fuel, both distorting the fuel market and resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions, contrary to the Government's policy of seeking to reduce polluting emissions."
	I consider that to be the most illuminating example of Treasury thinking that we have seen so far. The Minister honestly presents to us, and expects us to take seriously, the proposition that someone will embark on a 12-hour ferry journey from Aberdeen to Shetland in order to buy petrol that will still be about 10p dearer than it would have been in Aberdeen. That is obviously the way in which the Treasury's mind works, and when we understand that, we understand why the economy is in the mess that it is in today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander)—who, unfortunately, is no longer in the Chamber—referred to the impact of high fuel costs on prices, which I think is widely accepted. There is, however, an even wider impact. The higher prices paid by people in our communities make living in those communities that much more difficult. As a consequence of the increased costs, we see the continuation of population drift—and if there is a single threat to my communities that is greater and more immediate than the high cost of fuel, it is a declining population.

Alistair Carmichael: I have been to the Office of Fair Trading, and its representatives have come to see me. I can tell Members that the only thing one can be sure about is that the Office of Fair Trading is an office. It understands nothing about trading, and it certainly has no concept of fairness. That, however, is a debate for another day, although I could cheerfully hold forth on it for another 20 minutes without drawing breath. I promise that I will not do that, Mrs. Heal.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) wants me to do it, I will cheerfully do it—no, she is more interested in her BlackBerry. Very wise.
	The point about population decline is that, in the present economic circumstances, communities in the highlands and islands, especially the islands, become particularly vulnerable, and the problem becomes particularly acute. As I have indicated already to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and to others, I am a forgiving man, so I am prepared to offer the Minister one more opportunity tonight—unnecessarily perhaps and perhaps it is unwise to be so generous, but that is the sort of man I am. She can take the proposal seriously. If she has massive problems with defining where to draw lines on maps, take the lines that nature has drawn for her. Start with a scheme that applies to island communities only. Then we will know the truth about the assertions about people driving great distances to get cheap fuel, which costs them more. Then we will know the truth about fraud and duty evasion, and then we will know the truth about the extra costs of transport. Give us a pilot scheme that applies to island communities only. Let us see how that works and do something, instead of just offering the warm words that we have had in the past.

Angela Eagle: I was going to discuss the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I just wanted to make the point that it is not obvious that trying to manipulate the duty in different ways would have a predictable read-through to the price at the pump. There is no guarantee that it would, without our setting an actual price for petrol. We have never done that in the UK and it may well not be legal. The amendment assumes that predictability. Nobody on the opposition Benches has questioned that, but there are big question marks around it.
	It is also not necessarily the case that those who are least able to afford to pay petrol prices pay the highest in all cases, because great variation in price exists across the country and sometimes from one petrol station to another. The difference in prices on the various websites demonstrates that variation. It is greater in the highlands and islands than anywhere else, but there is a lot of variation and there is no obvious logic to the prices that one pays at the pump, despite the fact that fuel duty is the same across the country. That needs to be acknowledged and it might point to the fact that trying to manipulate the fuel duty is not the answer.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman's paper has been much prayed in aid and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to try to solve some of the practical problems. His eightfold classification would produce many tiny little pockets scattered all over Scotland, especially south Scotland, where the duty differential would apply. Not all of those areas experience higher fuel prices than the norm, within a reasonable fluctuation. Not all of them have similar prices either, as there is a wide variation. Some of that variation has to do with the normal workings of the petrol market and the fact that we do not mandate a single price for petrol across the country. Some of it may well have to do with rurality, but that is difficult to distinguish. Drawing boundaries on that basis would create many tiny little areas where fuel duty was lower than in other areas.
	Another aspect of the plan produced by opposition Members is to move the duty point from petrol distribution networks and oil companies to individual petrol stations, but that would be very difficult to achieve administratively and is not something that I would wish to do unless I could see major benefits accruing from the change. I do not believe that major benefits would accrue from that change, and that is another practical and administrative difficulty with the solution that hon. Members have produced.
	I recognise the difficulties, but I remain unconvinced that these proposals are the right way to tackle them. Therefore I ask the Committee to vote against amendment 5.

Brian Binley: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on these matters and is a great supporter of bingo clubs, as he is of his community generally. Does he think that that tax increase was about clawing back some of the money the Government thought they gave away by doing away with double taxation, or was there another reason?

Edward Timpson: May I endorse the clear and strong arguments that have been articulated by Members from all parties on this issue? It is clear that the issue touches the many communities that we represent, and that is reflected in the fact that every party represented in the Chamber this evening has had a representative who has clearly articulated the view that the Government's current position is untenable and unfair and needs to be reconsidered.
	I should like to declare an interest of sorts, Mrs. Heal, in that I am a member of my local Mecca bingo club in Crewe. I confess that I am a fairly new convert to the game, but my wife and I have had an exceptionally enjoyable evening there, along with many others on that occasion. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that his local bingo club had 26,000 members. I can tell the Committee that the one in Crewe has 20,000—which amounts to almost one in four of the local residents—and that it contributes a hugely important part to the social life of a great many people.
	Before I deal with the social impact of the Government's proposals in a little more detail, I want to say something about their economic impact. We have heard that the proposals in the Red Book will lead to the Rank and Mecca organisations paying an extra £9 million in tax per year. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) said that the Red Book makes it clear that the Treasury's estimate of the effects of the change will depend on the outcome of the High Court appeal. I therefore believe that the Government should let the legal process take its course before they consider its effect on their proposal. Only when they can see the full facts in the cold light of day will they be able to see what the industry's future is likely to be.
	Although the loss of VAT on interval games has been of some benefit to bingo halls, one industry representative said that the fact that they have had to deal almost at the same time with the rise of almost 50 per cent. in bingo duty has meant that it has been something of a pyrrhic victory. Bingo halls have had a very short stay of execution in their attempt to sort out their finances and ensure a long-term future.
	As we have heard, the rise in duty affects all bingo, whether it takes place in the interval or on the main stage. Both forms of the game, and especially interval bingo, will play a pivotal part in the bingo industry's future. Very many of our constituents enjoy bingo on an extremely regular basis, and for them it is often their primary leisure activity. It satisfies their need for social interaction and belonging, as one can clearly see when one goes to a bingo hall to enjoy a game.
	Bingo crosses all sorts of boundaries, and it is played by young and old alike. I think that I am right in saying that an increasing number of younger people enjoy bingo on a regular basis. We need to ensure that they, and those members of the older generation with a long history of enjoying bingo, are able to enjoy the game for many years to come. The Henley Centre published a research paper entitled "Unlucky for Some: The Social Impact of Bingo Club Closures". It said that the closures are both a manifestation of, and a catalyst for, the wider breakdown of local communities, with a negative impact on society.
	Bingo halls are essentially clubs for people. They love going to them and spending time with their friends. We should not deny them that opportunity in an attempt to claw back what is a miniscule amount compared to the overall deficit in the Government's finances. It is time that the Government thought again, because the bingo industry feels exasperated and betrayed.
	I urge the Government to wait for legal certainty. They can then think again and ensure that the bingo industry has the future that it deserves.

Angela Eagle: No. Prior to the Budget, the effective tax rate was calculated—and widely acknowledged—to be between 24 and 25 per cent. The Bingo Association acknowledged that. Our assessment was that it was between 24 and 25 per cent., and it might be sensible to remind hon. Members at this juncture that the effective tax rate had come down from 35 per cent. in 2003, so there has been a steady decline in the effective rate of taxation on bingo. It went down from 35 per cent. in 2003 to between 24 and 22 per cent. prior to the Budget, and when the Budget is put into effect, the rate will go down to 22 per cent. Those are facts, acknowledged widely in the industry and featured in the Bingo Association's Budget representations.

Angela Eagle: I was responding to the questions that I was asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands); I was attempting to be helpful. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right that when there is a VAT tribunal in progress, and there is an interim judgment, it applies only to the case in question, not broadly across the piece. Any other companies that have somehow decided that they ought not to be liable for VAT on participation fees because of the prospect of a judgment that has not yet been made are not exactly being up front about the circumstances. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs makes it quite clear in all VAT tribunal judgments that the judgments apply only to the case before the tribunal, and that if there is any read across, the issue of the VAT liability of other companies is still expected to be set aside until the tribunal is fully over—and it could carry on for some time yet.

Angela Eagle: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that. Budgets are an opportunity to examine tax rates and arrangements in all areas, and announcements on these issues are always made at Budgets. They are certainly not made in the middle of Westminster Hall debates, when the work leading up to the Budget is still ongoing.
	Our principal aim in the Budget with respect to gambling taxation has been to simplify the tax regime and bring increased clarity to the sector. Clause 20 is part of that package of reforms to gambling taxation. It has two elements. First, it increases the rate of bingo duty to 22 per cent., as has been pointed out. Secondly, it increases the money prize limit to £70, as the hon. Member for Bath was generous enough to point out, for duty-exempt small scale bingo conducted on certain premises. The increase in the rate is part of a package of measures that includes making bingo participation fees exempt from VAT, which will be debated upstairs on clause 112. The principal aim has been to simplify bingo taxation, as the industry had requested.
	The three amendments to clause 20 have different objectives, but they all relate primarily to the aspect of the clause that amends the bingo duty rate. Amendment 9 seeks to commit the Government to publish a report on the impact of changes made at the Budget. We always keep taxes under review and we take decisions at the Budget. Gambling taxes are no different, and we will continue to engage with the industry about the state of the industry and the impact of taxation and potential taxation measures. There is therefore no need for the Government to publish a report on the impact of increases in bingo duty later this year.
	Amendment 14 seeks to retain bingo duty at 15 per cent. Amendment 15 seeks to delay the increase in bingo duty until after court proceedings have concluded and Parliament has again debated the taxation of the bingo industry. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has been up front with the Committee today and said that the official Opposition will vote against clause 112 when we come to that debate, to remove participation fees from bingo as part of that package. I look forward to having that debate with him when the time comes.
	Both those amendments would cost money—£35 million, on the basis of figures in the Red Book. The effective tax rate on bingo is now 22 per cent., as I said earlier, comparable to the average rates of tax on casinos, gaming machines and the lottery. It is not clear why the Government should await the conclusion of a court case before deciding on an appropriate rate of tax for the bingo industry. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight concerns about the human papilloma virus vaccine Cervarix, which, contrary to Government assurances even yesterday, appears to be causing adverse reactions in a number of teenage girls, and to raise concerns about the cost-benefit analysis process that has led to that vaccination programme, the manner in which it is being delivered and the yellow card warning system.
	I only became concerned about the possible side effects of the Cervarix vaccine—and, I confess, aware of the vaccine itself—when the experience of one of my constituents, Rebecca Ramagge, was brought to my attention. Rebecca's mother came to see me at my surgery 12 days ago and told me how her daughter had fallen ill shortly after her first injection with Cervarix. Over the full course of the injections, she has gone from being a healthy sports-loving teenager who was a high achiever at school and a tournament-level tennis player, to being crippled by chronic fatigue syndrome, unable to attend school regularly and in need of help with basic tasks such as walking and eating because of the exhaustion and the muscular and joint pain from which she is now suffering.
	Despite experiencing serious joint pain and illness shortly after the initial injection in September 2008, Rebecca went on to receive the two follow-up jabs as the vaccinations were administered at school. Her family doctor was therefore unaware of the listed side effects of the drug and unable to link Rebecca's deteriorating condition to the vaccine. It was only after Rebecca was referred to a consultant paediatrician at East Surrey hospital, Dr. Jawad, that her symptoms were identified as highly consistent with a reaction to the vaccine.
	The consultant in question was astonished that nurses had administered the third injection to Rebecca when she was complaining of a recognised side effect listed in the product information as a common side effect of the vaccine. That raises the wider question that I will come to shortly, of whether school is an appropriate environment in which to vaccinate children.
	Rebecca's case is not an isolated one. Similar stories of severe reactions resulting in partial paralysis, seizures and chronic fatigue have been well featured in the national press. The vaccine support group JABS—Justice Awareness and Basic Support—has nine girls registered as suffering from severe adverse reactions to Cervarix. A solicitor who specialises in representing vaccine victims is representing six girls who are suing the makers of the vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline, under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Yesterday however, the Minister gave me a parliamentary answer that included the following:
	"To date almost one million doses of Cervarix have been given in the UK and there is no evidence to suggest that Cervarix vaccine has caused chronic fatigue syndrome, paralytic disorders or any other serious or long-term side effects."—[ Official Report, 12 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 706W.]
	For any vaccine, it is always probable that there will be a small number of people who have an adverse reaction. However, there are serious questions to be raised about this vaccine and its administration, the quality of the information available about its risks, and how it has been promoted by the Government.
	First, it is notoriously difficult to establish firm medical proof of a causal link between a vaccine and severe medical conditions previously unrecognised as side effects, but when a group of healthy teenagers suddenly begins to exhibit similar debilitating symptoms shortly after receiving the same vaccine, it is surely only sensible provisionally to conclude, even in the absence of concrete proof, that the common factor in all of the cases—the vaccine—is the likely cause.
	I was particularly disturbed to hear from the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) about the case of a girl who collapsed in pain hours after having the Cervarix jab in school. She has been in hospital ever since. The hospital has carried out a number of tests, but has so far been unable to establish the cause of her condition. Instead of exhausting the tests available to it by carrying out the hair trace test requested by the girl's family—who have been told they will have to pay for it privately—it has concluded that the condition is all in the girl's mind, a result of mental abuse by her mother who, convinced that her daughter has reacted badly to the vaccine, is projecting her conviction on to her daughter. I am told that it is now proposing to take this girl into care, but, in light of Rebecca Ramagge's experience, I am concerned that medical professionals have resorted to accusing members of this family of suffering from psychiatric disorders while not being prepared to test their thesis exhaustively.
	There is also the case referred to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) regarding his 18-year-old constituent who since having the HPV vaccination has started to suffer from frequent seizures—40 in the last nine weeks—that have left her unable to drive or to continue with her college course. Again, doctors are having difficulty diagnosing exactly what is wrong with her, and have started to hint that her problem may be mental rather than physical. There is also the case in Honiton—and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) is present to listen to this debate.
	I hope my constituent's experience will provoke a reassessment of these and other cases. Unless further proof emerges of another common factor between the affected girls that could have caused their condition, surely the only responsible course of action is to admit that the vaccine may have undesirable side effects for some girls, and to ensure that the public are aware of the risk, however small, they are taking when choosing to have the vaccine. In summary, the Government's current understanding—given to me yesterday by the Minister, I am quite sure in good faith—is flat wrong.
	Secondly, it is my assessment that the public have not been provided with clear and accurate information about the risks associated with the Cervarix vaccine. GlaxoSmithKline's product information gives a full list of undesirable effects that the vaccine might cause. Among those listed are serious conditions such as myalgia—listed as being very common—arthralgia and paraesthesia. Legal representatives of Cervarix victims point out that in many of the cases in which they are representing them, paraesthesia is so severe that the effect should be more accurately described as partial paralysis.
	The information provided to patients by the NHS, however, is much briefer and far more reassuring in tone. The NHS immunisation website lists the most common side effects as mild to moderate swelling, redness and pain at the site where the injection is given. It also lists symptoms such as slightly raised temperature, sickness, dizziness, diarrhoea and muscle aches as other mild side effects that have been reported. Without repeating the full details, I can tell the House that nowhere within this NHS information is there any indication that symptoms reported as suspected side effects have in some cases been both serious and persistent—for example, the chronic debilitating muscle and joint pain experienced by my constituent—nor does it give a full list of the symptoms. It misses out headache—although that is listed as a very common side effect—upper respiratory tract infection and paraesthesia, which are all included in the literature from GSK.
	This is not just about patients and their families; general practitioners, too, rely on the NHS's information; they are not being directed to GSK's more comprehensive data and they are therefore not looking for reactions. I know of GPs who, on the back of Rebecca's experience, have called staff meetings to alert their colleagues, and even in the past week those GPs now believe that they too are recognising symptoms. I am told that NHS Direct has no drop-down box to guide operators to ask, in the event of these symptoms being reported, whether the patient has recently had the Cervarix vaccine.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's latest figures show that they have received 1,602 reports of suspected reactions, including 161 recipients complaining about "pain in extremity" at the injection site. As I will explain, that is likely to be a serious understatement. In the light of this and the severe nature of some of the adverse reactions reported, I ask the Minister to consider as a matter of urgency changing the information that the Government provide GPs, families and NHS Direct, not only so that families and patients may make the informed choice to which they are entitled, but so that the potential symptoms are properly identified and linked. Failure to do that will open the Government to the charge of being simplistic at best and irresponsible at worst.
	Thirdly, I am concerned about the Government's blanket promotion of this vaccine as a silver bullet against cervical cancer. Reservations have also been expressed by some medical professionals about the thoroughness of the clinical trials, which they have claimed were too short and did not include enough girls under the age of 16, who have been the first age group to receive this vaccine as part of the Government's national programme. Gynaecological experts such as Diane Harper, director of the gynaecologic cancer prevention research group at Dartmouth medical school, have urged for the introduction of the vaccine to be delayed, so that any future side effects have time to manifest themselves.
	The Government have refused to produce any open data on the cost-benefit analysis they undertook in choosing Cervarix. Sexual health charities, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Brook Advisory Service, have expressed dismay that the Government have not followed the example of nearly every other western country in choosing the rival vaccine, Gardasil, which protects against a greater variety of pre-cancerous lesions than Cervarix, and genital warts as well. The Government's only public response has been that they made their decision according to "pre-agreed criteria", which they apparently will not disclose.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing this debate. My thoughts are with the young people about whom he spoke. I join him and other hon. Members in wishing them a full and speedy recovery and I shall say more in a moment about the individual cases.
	I shall start by sounding a caution. When we debate sensitive issues such as this, it is important to deal with the science, not the supposition, and with the evidence, not the hearsay or opinion. We should not be swayed by the lurid way in which HPV and its vaccine are sometimes portrayed in the media. We have played this game before with the MMR scare and many areas are now paying the price in an explosion in measles and mumps cases because not enough families have taken up the vaccine. I want to take this opportunity to address head on the suggestions that the HPV vaccine is not safe.
	Before licensing, Cervarix was rigorously tested and found to have minimal side-effects. Scientists conducted large-scale clinical trials, involving thousands of girls and young women, to assess its safety. Since then, several million doses of vaccine have been given around the world—including the best part of 1 million in the UK, as the hon. Gentleman said—with no new risks emerging.
	There are, of course, side-effects associated with Cervarix, as there are with all vaccines, but it is important to stress that most people do not experience any side-effects whatsoever. The most common known effects from Cervarix are injection site reactions, dizziness, headache, muscle pain, nausea and upset stomach. They are normally mild and last for no more than a few days. I accept that those reactions can be unpleasant, but they are nothing compared with the symptoms of advanced cervical cancer and are a price worth paying, in my view, to save 400 lives a year.
	There is a clear need to keep a watching brief, and we are continually monitoring safety so that we can quickly identify any new side-effects that might emerge. I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's proposition that somehow our regulatory and monitoring system is weak or substandard—it is one of the best. Every week, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency publishes online analysis of all suspected side-effects reported through its yellow card scheme. We know that almost 1,700 suspected side-effects have been reported since the immunisation programme was first introduced, but those figures come with a caveat. That is not my personal view as an individual; it is based on the scientific evidence and advice we are given.
	The figures do not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the medical condition, only that the reporter suspected it might have. On investigation, we find that 90 per cent. of those reports—to put it into perspective, that is about 1,500 reported cases out of 1 million, or 0.0015 per cent. of total vaccines administered—either relate to the known side-effects that I have already mentioned, or they were psychogenic events: that is, symptoms linked to a fear or anticipation of the needle injection. Those psychogenic events cover a number of girls who fainted after the injection, which is a known response to all needle-based vaccinations and is running at a rate that is in line with what experts would expect.
	In the remaining 10 per cent. of cases—let us remember that we are talking about 0.00017 per cent. of the total vaccines—there is good reason to think that the reported symptoms were associated with an underlying condition or illness that the person was suffering from at the time they had their vaccination. That, in fact, appears to be the most likely interpretation for the cases reported in the media recently, including the cases in the  Daily Express and  Daily Mail of the young girls who were reported as suffering from partial paralysis, chronic fatigue syndrome and fits since having their vaccination. The MHRA is fully aware of those cases, several of which were reported via the yellow card scheme, and is investigating them.
	As we vaccinated such a large cohort of young people, it was inevitable that a few cases would come forward where other conditions were reported as suspected side-effects even if the vaccine played no part. Indeed, the MHRA's statistical analysis of paralytic disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome shows that the reported frequency of such cases is no more than—or should I say the same as—would have been expected among a similar cohort of unvaccinated teenagers. In addition, the Government's independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines, looked into the reports not just in the UK, but across the world and concluded that there are no new safety issues associated with the vaccine.
	I realise that that is no consolation or comfort to the girls to whom the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Equally, however, it is no reason to condemn a programme that has seen more than a million teenagers receive injections with little or no reported effect.
	The Government are committed to transparency and the hon. Member for Reigate can be assured that any emerging information on the possible side-effects will be fully evaluated. We will take appropriate action promptly when any true side-effects are detected but, alongside that transparency, we need to maintain public trust and confidence. The facts speak for themselves, and they remind us why we introduced the vaccine in the first place.
	We know that at least half of all sexually active women will be infected by a strain of HPV in their lifetime. We know that the viruses are responsible for causing more than 99 per cent. of cervical cancer cases, and a range of other cancers. There are nearly 3,000 cases of cervical cancer each year, a third of which will prove fatal within five years, and we know that the HPV vaccine is effective in protecting young women against two HPV strains that are responsible for around 70 per cent. of those cancer cases. As a result, the vaccine could eventually prevent up to 400 deaths due to cervical cancer every year.
	So the facts tell us that the Cervarix vaccine is a major breakthrough in public health, and the first vaccine that can directly prevent cancer. It would be a travesty if women were denied the potential that it offers because of scaremongering and supposition. The weight of evidence says that the vaccine is safe, effective and capable of saving thousands of lives in the years ahead.
	The hon. Member for Reigate talked about lack of information. Tomorrow, I shall do him the service of referring him to my parliamentary answers detailing the conditions for the contract negotiations and on which the contracts were judged. I will not be able to give him any information that is commercially confidential, but the House has received a very full explanation of the matter, both in writing and in parliamentary answers to individual Members.
	I believe that we should support and celebrate the saving of women's lives from a preventable illness. I advise the hon. Member for Reigate that reports that the vaccine is not safe are incorrect, as are those suggesting that it lacks the confidence of the scientific community. I assure him that the Government, like any other, will always remain vigilant in respect of the vaccination programme.